In the case of Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants in 1987, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a federal court could not issue an injunction to halt a strike by flight attendants against TWA while their union was challenging layoffs before an arbitrator. The Railway Labor Act (RLA) requires airlines and unions to maintain "status quo" during negotiations or arbitration over major disputes concerning rates of pay, rules or working conditions but does not apply to minor disputes such as interpretation or application of existing agreements relating to these issues. The Supreme Court held that this dispute was minor because it involved interpreting existing collective bargaining agreement provisions about layoffs due to economic necessity rather than negotiating new ones so RLA did not prohibit the strike.

In the dissenting opinion for Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Independent Federation of Flight Attendants, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was a misinterpretation of the Railway Labor Act (RLA). He contended that TWA had not exhausted all necessary procedures before implementing changes to working conditions during negotiations with its flight attendants' union. The RLA requires both parties in labor disputes to maintain status quo until they have gone through mediation and potential intervention by the National Mediation Board or Presidential Emergency Board. According to Justice Blackmun, TWA violated this requirement when it unilaterally changed work rules while still negotiating with the union over those very issues - an action he believed should be considered as 'self-help'. He also disagreed with how his colleagues applied precedent from other cases involving similar circumstances under different statutes like Norris-LaGuardia Act and Taft-Hartley Act which are not applicable here due to distinct statutory language and legislative history.